‘The Equality and Human Rights Commission is running short of board members and struggling to fulfil its duties because, lawyers allege, ministers are repeatedly vetoing appointments on political grounds.’

‘The Gambling Commission in Britain can prevent pubs from providing gambling services to consumers even if those pubs satisfy the criteria necessary for obtaining an operating licence, the Court of Appeal in London has confirmed.’

‘Last Thursday the government published its technical review of the operation of the “English votes for English laws” (EVEL) procedures in the House of Commons. The review concluded against making “any substantive changes”. Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny argue that this is a missed opportunity. The decision to close down this chance for parliament to engage in meaningful debate about the EVEL system is regrettable, and may prove to be short-sighted.’

‘Brexit is a very parliamentary affair. The reason is that both the UK Parliament, the European Parliament and, in all likelihood, each of the parliaments of the EU Member States will have veto powers over the terms of Brexit. This gives them ample opportunities to influence the course of negotiations. Unless the wishes of all of these parliamentary bodies are accommodated, it will be a rather ‘hard’ Brexit indeed. This commentary examines the role of parliaments in the UK’s yet-to-be-triggered exit from the EU.’

‘Judges shouldn’t be frightened to set precedents. A list of those that have “gone too far” – including over a Guardian freedom of information request on the Prince of Wales’s letters – risks deterring justice.’

‘Government plans to remove the House of Lords’ ability to veto some draft laws would “tilt the balance of power… towards government”, peers have said. A review of the Lords’ powers was set up after peers voted down planned tax credits cuts – later axed by ministers. But its scope has been criticised by two Lords committees who say its proposals would “damage” Parliament’s role and should be shelved.’

‘Politicians are frequently better placed than judges to decide what constitutes the public interest in releasing information about foreign relations, national security and other areas, according to the attorney general.’

‘David Cameron is preparing to use the full force of the law to clip the wings of the House of Lords after it blocked his welfare cuts, the BBC has learned. A review will say peers should lose their absolute veto over detailed laws known as secondary legislation. Peers will instead be offered a new power to send these laws back to the Commons, forcing MPs to vote again – but will only be able to do this once.’

‘On 26 October 2015, the House of Lords debated the Tax Credits (Income Thresholds and Determination of Rates) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. The Regulations were approved, but subject to two riders. Critics claimed that these riders constituted “fatal” amendments, and that they were therefore tantamount to a rejection of the legislation. It was argued that it is constitutionally improper for the House of Lords to reject financial legislation in this way.’

‘The UK government must give new guidance to public authorities on when government ministers can exercise powers of veto to prevent the disclosure of information under freedom of information (FOI) laws.’Full story

‘On 13th April, the Guardian were finally able to publish the ‘black spider memos,’ private correspondence between Prince Charles and several government departments between September 2004 and March 2005.’

‘On Thursday 26th March the Supreme Court concluded, to the delight of The Guardian and the dismay of the Prime Minister, that communications between Prince Charles and government Ministers – the so-called ‘black spider memos’ – should be released. This has been a long saga, involving issues of freedom of information, discussion of constitutional conventions surrounding the behaviour of a Monarch in training, which now also includes the principle of legality and the nature of the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. Such a cornucopia of delights for constitutional lawyers guarantees that the case has earned its place in the ‘Constitutional law Case list Hall of Fame’, with the promise of further delight as the memos, once released and savoured, cast an insight into the relationship between the Crown and the Government.’

‘And so, the long legal saga of the Black Spider Letters finally comes to a close.

I last blogged about this case back in October 2012. At that time, the Attorney General had ignited controversy by invoking a little-known power under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).’